This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beckjord (talk | contribs) at 05:13, 27 December 2005 (I was told to contact you. I did. Here.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I periodically go through and clean out the old comments... This is because they refer to old situations or that the comments are otherwise no longer relevant. Those looking for archives are invited to refer to the history.

Note: If you are here to leave personal attacks, false accusations of vandalism, a long tirade about why your cat photo or article about yourself should be left alone as you and only you wanted, nonsensical rationalizations of why vampires, ancient astronauts, werewolves, "creation science" and so on should be treated as completely real and so forth, do not bother, as I'll either just remove them right away or simply point you to the appropriate Misplaced Pages policy which you should have read in the first place.

Otherwise please add new comments below.

Thank you

I've been watching your name pop up on the Freya article as reverting to a sane, not-sourced-to-not-quite-fiction version. Since someone of Victorian rather than Norse/Medieval values seems to be bent on sanitizing the article repeatedly, I thank you for your efforts. Yes, someone appreciates them. --Esthanya 08:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome. I do what I can here and there. DreamGuy 08:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

I suspect that users 80.145.145.28 and 80.145.133.218 are the same person. "Their" behaviour is to go to certain pages including fringe linguistics theories and blank talk pages where other people protest the addition. I'm not sure if this is really sockpuppetry; maybe it's the same guy doing it from his computer at home and then in a different computer in college or at work, without intending to deceive. How should other editors deal with this, besides repeatedly reverting? Thank you. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Are you interested in becoming an adm.?Molotov (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

There's basically no chance I would be approved as an admin. DreamGuy 07:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I can relate personally, pratically none of the best editors are given any respect or recognition in my opinion. Seeing that you have survived massive amounts of vitriol against you, I think you have done Misplaced Pages a justice by staying here. Molotov (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

... by the way, you congratulations on your 5,000th edit! Molotov (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I know we've had differences in the past, but I just wanted to say thanks. I admire your efforts towards WP:NPOV. Friday (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Any article in particular you are talking about here? DreamGuy 04:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep. This edit is what I noticed. Friday (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yeah... I thought that one was pretty clear cut, especially since the Afrocentrist editor there and myself both agreed the link was inappropriate... not sure what the other guy was thinking. DreamGuy 04:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Chimera

Hello. Looks like some progress was made here. Septentrionalis made some concessions. I wonder if you could look at my proposed compromise wording for the "location" entry. (See latest comment uder Talk:Chimera#Page_protected.) Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has closed Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy with no action taken. →Raul654 22:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'm glad to see that these baseless accusations were ignored as "utterly unpersuasive" by admins on a 5 to 1 decision (and note that the 1 dissent was only asking to look into it longer and not recommending any action against me). I am sorry that so many people wasted their time on a complaint that was created solely for revenge purposes and, for many of the complainants (User:Gavin the Chosen aka Gabrielsimon and three or four other usernames, User:Eequor and User:Vashti, especially), a transparent attempt to remove a major voice in support of NPOV on articles that they were trying to push their own agendas on. Hopefully now they will realize that their complaints are without merit and stop making biased edits (though it helps that Gabriel has been banned for two months already). DreamGuy 05:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Congrats also (although it was never really in doubt) I know we butted heads on occasion but your actions relating to GirlyVinyRFC/SqeaukBox thing confirmed my impression of your "decentness" and whilst I didn't get involved once the arbitation had started (SqueakBox had already lost the argument for himself by that point anyway) I kept an I eye on it just in case. --ElvisThePrince 17:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer

I doubt it matters too - aparently a new user named Call of Duty is making edits similar to Lightbringer's, but without the personal attacks. We'll certainly see. --User:Scimitar 17:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I'm not sure, and can't be sure without an IP check. Again unfortunately, I'm not in a position that a request for an IP check will neccessarily be carried out. I'll drop a note off with one of the arbitrators; hopefully they can get things moving.--User:Scimitar 17:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the first comment you made on Lightbringer's talk page on the suggestion of another editor; just because it's true doesn't mean it should be said (WP:NPA). Hope you don't mind. --User:Scimitar 20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think it would be a problem, but I just wanted to be sure. If I'm less than exact in my communication, I get all sorts of people mad at me ;) --User:Scimitar 21:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Regardless of what people say about your temper, you deserve this for your massive and tireless work towards NPOV. ~~ N (t/c) 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks... It's a never ending battle. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Award

Indeed you deserve some recognition for your effort. Though your editwarring has been controversial you did contribute greatly for the academic quality and neutrality of wikipedia. --BorgQueen 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And thanks to you also. "Edit warring" is another one of those POVs I just see changing it back to the way it's supposed to be and not just letting someone who is doing it incorrectly win out of apathy. All it tkaes for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, yada yada yada. Some people here seem to be more interested in some red tape that will maybe get something wrong fixed two months later, by which times there's already 50 more bad things to fix and a lot of readers who got bad info. That's my philosophy. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Wicca Merge cleanup

Thanks for cleaning up my merge... I should have copyedited it before I dumped the cut & paste job into Wicca...--Isotope23 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not a big deal... any step in the right direction is a good step. DreamGuy 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

user:Dark droid

Please see WP:RFM. Jim Apple 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt question

I came across your remark on Talk:Ancient Egypt. You might be interested in User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Fringe theories added by this user often aren't recognized as such because he edits a lot of low-profile articles where he goes largely unnoticed. You might be able to help out. Regards, — mark ✎ 19:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

OMG... that guy has been putting his nonsense into hundreds of articles... It's crap like this that makes me think Misplaced Pages is doomed to failure, because any nut with a lot of free time on his hands can go put his insane theories all over the place and it takes a group of people to track them all down and try to undo the damage.DreamGuy 05:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said elsewhere; this is the most dangerous and disruptive kind of 'vandalism'. I discovered him in April this year, and warned a bunch of other editors. After some warnings which didn't work out, a lot of his contributions have been reverted on sight during May, but then he abandoned his account and started to contribute anonymously from 4.241.*.* IP's, and from then on it was only more difficult to track him down. What is worse, a lot of editors do not recognize his contributions as dangerous, probably because of his authorative tone and because he references his statements with a curious (and self-serving) mix of external links. It's very disheartening. I'm curious to know what you -as a winner of the NPOV award :)- would do in this case. — mark ✎ 19:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, honestly... Try to track him down as best we can for the good of the project, but then it's a tremedous effort and I'm already spending way more time here than I should be tracking things I currently track. I think the system is inherently flawed and that it will inevitably be filled with crap as the good editors give up. It's not like we are all independently wealthy and educated with lots of free time. DreamGuy 20:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand, just thought it was worth asking. I think I agree with you that this is an inherent flaw of the system. Currently working out what that means to me. — mark ✎ 20:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer Arbitration case

The Arbitration case against Lightbringer, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer, to which you contributed, has closed. The decision is that Lightbringer is hereby banned indefinitely from editing articles and talk-pages related to Freemasonry (the closeness of the relation is to be interpretted by any sysop as they see fit, regardless of the article's title), and is placed on personal attack parole for six months from now (to expire on the 24 of May 2006). If Lightbringer violates the Freemasonry ban, a sysop may ban them for up to a week, and after five such bans, for up to a year. If they violate the personal attack parole, a sysop may ban them for up to a week.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

He was already violating the temporary ban on editing that article and others like that during the arbitration throught the use of something like four or more sockpuppets. He'll be blocked soon enough again I'm sure. DreamGuy 04:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Norse mythology

Could you please take a look at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). A couple of editors are trying to force a guideline tag on it, even though it clearly did not reach consensus and violates existing guidelines. CDThieme 01:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot back

I know you've had dealings with this disruptive editor before. Well, he has made a new account, User:Chaosfeary. Please check his contribs and see if you agree that he is Enviroknot. Yuber 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had dealings with Enviroknot, but then Chaosfeary from what I've seen so far (mainly on Poison ivy and comments on some admin pages) doesn;t appear to be the same guy. I could be wrong, and granted I did not check out any of the Islamofascist pages, but then I never checked those out with Enviroknot either. Personally, I think that if it were Enviroknot that once I contradicted him on the Poison ivy talk page he would have immediately started insulting me like he always did. DreamGuy 04:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Inkblot.gif

I noticed you uploaded Image:Inkblot.gif some time ago, and I was wondering where you got it. And I'm guessing the reason it's public domain is because it's really old, right? Phoenix-forgotten 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wicca

Thank you for catching those new external links at the Wicca page. I missed them entirely in watching the article on my list. Slainté, P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

...and another thanks is owed to you. The recent anonymous editor (IP: 207.216.22.108) left a distasteful POV contribution to Wicca, which you fixed. It is appreciated. -P.MacUidhir (t) (c)

Replying to your message, as your e-mail was not available to me.

Good afternoon DreamGuy. I would like to reply to the message you left me since I could not do so privately in e-mail. Please feel free to delete this whenever you are through with it. I rather think posting those links in commercial and personal spaces are acceptable and based on the rules of Misplaced Pages are not out of line. If posting them on all sub-links of Savannah as points of interest is wrong, I am sorry, but it seemed pertinent to me, especially since there is hardly any other information on those pages. I did not “spam” (as you say) any links on pages that were not somehow directly related to the subject of the links. Why you chose to pick those two links, out of many commercial and non-commercial links on the pages to dispute, I have no idea. I am sorry if you have a problem with ghost books but this one is directly related to Savannah, Georgia so it seems to me that this link would be the last one you would erase off the Savannah page. Having reviewed the “spamming” page link it seems to me that spamming would be on a much larger scale that the links I posted. If you would like I can move all of them to the bottom, if this appeases your mind. I also linked them in the external links section, this is not like I cut into every paragraph of the articles and inserted the link. I actually thought it might be of interest to people who happen to enjoy ghosts. I am not even in the employ of Cobblestone Tours or even James Caskey himself, I just thought (as a local Savannah resident who has read the book, taken the tour, and is a fan) that I should point more people who are interested in this sort of thing to the stories and experience. However, feel free to remove links that are not pertinent, if you so choose, but articles related directly to Savannah’s ghosts, I feel, are not in that category. In the future though, if you would like to continue this discussion, feel free to send me an e-mail, this information should be available to you as I filled it out when I registered.

I would also like to add that this is my first time using Misplaced Pages so if there is a problem here it may just be that I am not an initiate yet.

Sincerely,

Margaret

You added two different links to the same website to thirty different articles as your only edit, all in half an hour. It'd be difficult to find a more clearcut example of spam than that. DreamGuy 18:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Note on Mummy page

Hello. Thanx for the message about the Mummy page. I have just started getting familiar with the code, and obviously I need to be careful. Regarding a different page, the Horemheb page, I happened upon the cartouches in a photo, and found that the real ones, intermix the "Blocks" of hieroglyphs, which complicates accuracy. I tried to explain it on Talk:Horemheb and tried the regular curvy line (water) n, but it didn't appear correct, visually. So I put in the Crown N (for the North, Delta (crown) ). Its accurate, but complicates the order. like I say, the blocks are intermixed, in his Cartouche.. But thanks; I'll look at the Mummy page...Michael McAnnis, YumaAZMmcannis 02:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC against Roylee

Hi DreamGuy. If you have some time, please check out Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Roylee and endorse or comment as you see fit. — mark ✎ 10:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Suspicions Drop

I had suspicions on this page until I read some of your readers' discussions. Enjoy your page.--Mac Simms 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You had your what? Suspicions on what? Enjoy my page what? This comment comes from out of nowhere, I've never heard of you, and I have no clue what you are trying to say.

Also, you went and edited someone else's comments on this page -- granted, you were trying to correct someone else's spelling, but A) this is a talk page, spelling doesn't matter, B) it was in British English and was spelled perfectly correctly for where the editor was from, C) Please just don't edit other people's comments. DreamGuy 03:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Winged Bull

Sorry I put the message on the wrong page, but I'm out of wikipedia practice. Frankly, I'm not going to be upset if you delete the Winged Bull. If the permission I got isn't authoritative, then so be it, and go ahead and remove the pic. Mind you that the article will be weaker without the image. 05:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Christmas article RE: Mithraism

I appreciate your reasons for not wanting to link to a religious article, but I was bothered by the phrase "information that takes the side of a biased source." Setting aside the question of whether "bias" as such immediately invalidates information that happens to agree with it (that's a whole 'nother barrel of fish), it's hard to find a NON-biased source on this. I was doing my own research on this theory, and it was a frustrating experience for me having to read the same talking points about Mithras spawning Christianity or Christianity spawning Mithraism in it's late form. It seems like everyone's out to either prove one or the other by repetition of vague arguments. The reason I linked to the letter was because, despite what some would see as an incentive to undermine the Mithras theory, he makes good argument and provides references, which is more than most will do. I didn't think it fair to just repeat the references verbatim, I figured the guy deserved credit for actually reasoning through it. The article Wiki links to, "The History of Christmas" makes all kinds of assertions about Mithraism without documenting any sources at all. It seems like everyone's regurgitating the same main points about Mithraism without documenting them, and that this fairly reasonable argument provided a welcome balance to this.

At some point I'd like to write something more thorough myself, but that will have to wait until after finals :)

Oh, and as for my summary...I think what I wrote was rational, and doesn't really establish either side. It wasn't lifted from the letter at all, it was just the truth...we don't have any (as far as I know) earlier sources about Mithraism than those written by its Christian opponents, which kind of makes it hard to figure what they actually believed and when, and more specifically when Dec. 25 was established as the birthday of Mithras. The belief system was syncretistic, and it did change from its Persian roots, and I haven't been able to find anything documenting the process of this change...just the results, which is frustrating. If we DO have earlier sources or well-informed research arguing the other side...by all means...add them -- I would very much like to know. Like I said, this may merit its own article.

How should I interpret your removal of my apology without comment?

As an acceptance of it, or a rejection? Pcb21 Pete 11:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice rfc

Hi DreamGuy

Your comments at deeceevoice's RfC are requested. deecee has refused to respond so far.

Thanks

Erik Beckjord

Hi there. We've both made edits to the Erik Beckjord. The article is now up for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Erik Beckjord, and I think your input would definitely be of value. Thanks. --DanielCD 15:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also: I am going to attempt a re-write of the article. Any assistance you could give as far as reputable references would be appreciated. --DanielCD 15:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe it got nominated for deletion out of fear that the guy would disrupt Wikipeida, how insane. You already picked up the refeences I had, as they were actually quite easy that I found them with a two second Google search yesterday. Not much else I can say about the guy encyclopedically. I only heard of him yesterday after he started posting nonsense edits and attacks in various places. DreamGuy 05:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wolf Woods

Just though I would let you know that The Wolf Woods is an encyclopedia website. Or at least as much of an encyclopedic source as you can get on the subject of werewolves. It's limping on after some Therian Label Seekers made it their target for flame/raging, but it's got some good information on it. Such as the Text to The Lay of Melion, Bisclavret, The Volsunga Saga, as well as articles on Porphyria, Ergot, The mental desise of Lycanthropy, The Beast of Gevuadan, The Wendigo. It has information of Werewolf books and films, proverbs, accused werewolves, terminology, International names for werewolves and even several pages on non-transforming run of the mill wolves, ect..

And yes, Beckjord is a psychopath. I got no opinion as to what to do with his page, but I do know that he's just loving the attention he's getting. Someone made the mistake of telling him the old saying of "Don’t read your press weigh it." and he's been rampaging ever since. VilaWolf

Thank you

Thank you for your work on reverting all the additions of people.noteroom.com and their associated removal of valid links. Keep it up. --PTSE 22:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi DreamGuy. I posted a response on the Admin Incidents board. I'd like to hear what you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_spammer_gaming_the_system

You're damn hard to get along with but you still deserve a barnstar

I award DreamGuy the Editor's Barnstar for his merciless efforts to keep spam, vandalism, subtrivial fictional references, fantasies presented as facts, unsourced non-sense and Encyclopedia Mythica crap out of Misplaced Pages. It's a messy job but someone's got to do it. Thank you. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice NPOV violations

Hi DreamGuy, CoYep, and SuperBleda,

If you have specific instances of deeceevoice's violation of NPOV, NOR or CITE could you post them to the deeceevoice rfc talk page? They are outside the scope of the original RfC and can't really be added at this point. Clear, indisputable violations make the best examples. It was a mistake not to include thse in the first place, if deeceevoice tones down her language but persists in content violations, little progress will have been made. -Justforasecond 18:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

External links on ghost page

Hi DreamGuy, Thankyou for repointing the external link to the actual internal page on the haunted castle web site as opposed to the home page...should have thought of that :-) Rgds Collieman

Holmes

Actually, if you look at my edits, you'd see that I linked to a page about the Servant Girl Annihilator, as the reporters of the time referred to him. And if Cream was only accused of one murder in the US, he can't be described as having definitely committing more.Shsilver 03:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ugh... Did you even read what I wrote to you? In my note to you I mentioned that you did eventually link to the case, but under the less common name. For something you hadn't heard of a day ago you shouldn't be trying to tell me what the papers called him based upon one source you found. Furthermore, Cream WAS accused of more, he was only CONVICTED of one, and I just got done telling you that... Please take the time to read these cites and explanations completely before you go off half-cocked deleting things froma rticles just because you never heard of them and replying to me when the note you are replying to already answered the points you are tryig to argue. DreamGuy 16:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Nostradamus

Could you please look at Talk:Nostradamus. I believe your superb NPOV editing skills would be helpful here. Thank you. --BorgQueen 03:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I got a headache just skimming it... Ouch, it's pretty bad. I'll see what I can come up with, but first order of business is plopping a tag on it. DreamGuy 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Glad you noticed the seriousness of matter. User:Theodore7 is constantly pushing his POV to a number of articles completely disregarding consensus, including Astrology, and claiming Isaac Newton was an astrologer without giving any source, etc., and already violated 3RR in more than one article. --BorgQueen 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

capitals in Freemasonry pages

this thread consolidated, & moved to Freemasonry's Talk page

DreamGuy, I didn't do any of this thread's moving out of malice, wanted it in one place for all of our consideration. Did the same on my talk page.

Natasha Demkina

I have done an (almost total) bare-bones rewrite of the Natasha Demkina article and placed it at User:BillC/sandbox. I haven't written anything about it to Talk:Natasha Demkina yet. I'd appreciate it if you could give it a look over. Regards, BillC 17:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

In reference to the Nostradamus article

Instead of reverting, I think I speak for most the editors working on the article when I say I'd like for you to at least talk about changes on the talk page instead of ignoring any debate there and following your own opinion. I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just saying this would be more helpful, since everyone agreeing is going to be hard enough without people not even taking part in the disscusion. --Joewithajay 03:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I DID talk about the changes on the talk page, but the POV-pushers ignore it and keep reverting it, so don't even bother "not accusing" me of anything. The problem is, the astrologer who wants to make Nostradamus sound like he really did predict the future can write out long (and frequently incoherent) rants, but that doesn't mean that he has a case in the word at all. NPOV policy is not something you can just ignore, or "debate" away. You need to follow it. Period. DreamGuy 20:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dragon (disambiguation)...

I noticed you made this a redirect. Any objections to me reinstating it as a proper disambig? I really think that the mythological definition of "Dragon" really deserves a proper article without such a lengthy discussion of other things that happen to be named after it. elvenscout742 20:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

replied on your pageDreamGuy 20:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your solution sounds a little too complicated. My idea was simply to move all the disambiguation content to a disambiguation page called "Dragon (disambiguation)". After all, when people say dragon, they usually mean the mythological creature. The current article is primarily on that concept but features some out-of-place disambiguation content. I suggest we change things to conform to something a little more like what we have with "Shogun" and "Shogun (disambiguation)", along with most other such cases. elvenscout742 22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how there is anything complicated about it. Simply moving all the disambig info and then trying to write a new Dragon article creates a FORK file, as the info that would be on Dragon is currently on European Dragon. We don;t need to create yet another article to repeat the same info. DreamGuy 22:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Seems like we both misunderstood each other. I say we DELETE sections 3 and four of "Dragon" and put them on the former disambig called "Dragon (disambiguation)" - which is currently a redirect, and the reason I consulted you was because you were the one who made it so. I have no problem with your suggestions about "European dragon", though I still think that any real articles that are left should be expanded, as this is probably the most commmon creature in mythologies from around the world, and current coverage is woefully incomplete. elvenscout742 22:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly have NOT violated 3RR. Please pay attention. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Mythology...

As much as I'd like to see Codex Sinaiticus get blocked for these crimes against Misplaced Pages, he technically stopped after two reverts, then posted a notice at the top, and has since reverted that once. Does that still count? elvenscout742 23:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ohhh.... I didn't specially look at the last ones, as I couldn't revert them without going over myself... but then if he can introduce an unrelated change I can undo it without going over myself. One way or another between the two of us we can get rid of his edits and force him to leave it the right way or get blocked. The totally disputed tag was clearly inappropriated, as the article most certainly is not "totally" disputed and his only dispute comes from not even bothering to read the article and wanting to push his POV. DreamGuy 23:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, but he's not stupid enough to simply revert four times, and I'm not going to get my hands dirty in a lengthy edit war. I say the best thing for the two of us to do is to let diplomacy resume. If people come by and see the tag, they will get involved, and if we play our cards right and don't start being stubborn and flaming him, they will side with us, and we will win. elvenscout742 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the guy can;t get away with this nonsense... you don't throw a totally disputed tag on something because you can't get your way on one sentence on the whole article. He's just trying to get around the rules and it's not oging to fly. DreamGuy 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

But we can't do anything without participating in a revert war. I've seen what that looks like on a history page. He'll get what's coming to him if we just get some other Wikipedians who know what they're talking about on this. elvenscout742 23:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

blocked users logging in

On User talk:Gimmiet you said, "That account was blocked I thought, so I don't know how he signed on recently to remove the talk page pointing the stuff out." Blocking doesn't stop a user from logging in - they can still use their watchlist and preferences and stuff - and blocked users are allowed to edit their own user_talk pages. So, nothing unusual happening there. We could protect User talk:Ketrovin to prevent him from editing it, if there is a persistent problem, but it doesn't seem necessary yet. FreplySpang (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Beckjord to DG

I post here because I have NO guarantee that you will READ what I post anywhere else. Your multiple long term editors know nothing abiout the Bigfoot topic, and I will continue to edit out nonsense and vandalism. Those people are just NOT QUALIFIED to edit.

beckjordBeckjord 05:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)